Seismic Isolation of Highway Bridges: Effective Performance of LRBs at Low

Temperatures

Carlos MENDEZ
PhD. MSc. Civil Engineer, mageba Mexico, Mexico
[email protected]

Gianni MOOR
MSc. Civil Engineer, mageba USA, USA
[email protected]

Borja BAILLÉS
MSc. Civil Engineer, mageba International, USA
[email protected]

ABSTRACT: Curved highway bridges are widely used in modern highway systems, often being the most
viable option at complicated interchanges or other locations where geometric restrictions apply. Among
the great variety of seismic isolation systems available, the lead rubber bearing (LRB), in particular, has
found wide application in highway bridge structures. However, conventional LRBs, which are
manufactured from standard natural rubber and lead, display a significant vulnerability to low
temperatures. This paper describes the challenge faced in the seismic isolation using LRBs of a curved
highway viaduct where low temperatures must be considered in the design. Specifically, the LRBs must
be able to withstand temperatures as low as -30 °C for up to 72 hours, while displaying only minor
variations in their effective stiffness. This extreme condition required the development of a new rubber
mixture, and the optimization of the general design of the isolators.

1. Introduction
Increasing awareness of the threats posed by seismic events to critical transport infrastructure has led to
the need to seismically retrofit highway viaducts and other bridges to improve their ability to withstand a
strong earthquake. Continually evolving technology and the improving evaluation and design abilities of
practitioners have also contributed to the need for such solutions - as have, of course, increasingly
stringent national design standards. In recent years, curved highway bridges (Figure 1) have become
more widely used, as the most viable option at complicated interchanges or river crossings. Curved
structures are more prone to seismic damage than straight ones, and may sustain severe seismic
damage owing to rotation of the superstructure or displacement toward the outside of the curve line due
to the complex vibrations that arise during strong earthquake ground motions.

Page 1 of 9
 Figure 1. Construction of a curved highway viaduct.

2. Seismic isolation of structures

A bridge’s bearings have historically been among its most vulnerable components with respect to seismic
damage. Steel bearings in particular have performed poorly and have been damaged by relatively minor
seismic shaking (Ruiz et al., 2005). So a strategy of seismically isolating a bridge’s superstructure, by
replacing these vulnerable bearings with specially designed protection devices, has much to offer.
Seismic isolation systems provide an attractive alternative to conventional earthquake resistance design,
and have the potential for significantly reducing seismic risk without compromising safety, reliability, and
economy of bridge structures (Pan et al., 2005). Furthermore, with the adoption of new performance-
based design criteria, seismic isolation technologies will be the choice of more structural engineers
because they offer economical alternatives to traditional earthquake protection measures (Mendez,
2008).
Seismic isolators provide the structure with enough flexibility so the natural period of the structure
differentiates as much as possible from the natural period of the earthquake, as shown in Figure 2. This
prevents the occurrence of resonance, which could lead to severe damage or even collapse of the
structures. An effective seismic isolation system should provide effective performance under all service
loads, vertical and horizontal. Additionally, it should provide enough horizontal flexibility in order to reach
the target natural period for the isolated structure. Another important requirement of an effective isolation
system is ensuring re-centering capabilities, even after a severe earthquake, so that no residual
displacements could disrupt the serviceability of the structure. Finally, it should also provide an adequate
level of energy dissipation, mainly through high ratios of damping (Figure 2), in order to control the
displacements that otherwise could damage other structural elements.

2.1. Application in bridges

Bridges are ideal candidates for the adoption of base isolation technology due to the relative ease of
installation, inspection and maintenance of isolation devices. Although seismic isolation is an effective
technology for improving the seismic performance of a bridge, there are certain limitations on its use. As
shown in Figure 2, seismic isolation improves the performance of a bridge under earthquake loading
partially by increasing the fundamental vibration period. Thus, the vibration period of a bridge is moved
away from the high-energy seismic ground period and seismic energy transfer to the structure is
minimized. Therefore, the use of seismic isolation on soft or weak soil, where high period ground motion
is dominant, reduces the benefits offered by the technology (Turkington et al. 1989). The seismic isolation
system has a relatively high vibration period compared to a conventional structure. Due to the principle of
dynamic resonance, a larger difference between the dynamic vibration frequencies of the isolation system
and the superstructure results in a minimized seismic energy transfer to the superstructure. Therefore,
seismic isolation is most effective in relatively rigid structural systems and will provide limited benefits for
highly flexible bridges.

Page 2 of 9
 Figure 2. Reduction of acceleration by seismic isolation (left) and by additional damping (right).

Another consideration is related to the large deformations that may occur in seismic base-isolation
bearings during a major seismic event, which causes large displacements in a deck (Pan et al. 2005).
This may result in an increased possibility of collision between deck and abutments. Damping is crucial to
minimize the seismic energy flow to the superstructure and to limit the horizontal displacements of the
bearings (Mendez, 2008).

3. Lead rubber bearings (LRB)

Among the great variety of seismic isolation systems, lead rubber bearings (LRB) have found wide
application in bridge structures (Moehle, 1999). This is due to their simplicity and the combined isolation
and energy dissipation functions in a single compact unit. Using hydraulic jacks, the superstructure of a
bridge that requires seismic retrofitting can typically be lifted to remove the original bearings, easily
replacing them with suitable LRB bearings.
LRBs consist of alternate layers of natural rubber (NR) and steel reinforcement plates of limited thickness,
and a central lead core (Figure 3). They are fabricated with the rubber vulcanized directly to the steel
plates, including the top and bottom connection plates, and can be supplied with separate anchor plates,
facilitating future replacement.

Figure 3. Cut-out view of a multi-directional LRB, showing the lead core at its center.

LRBs limit the energy transferred from the ground to the structure in order to protect it. The rubber/steel
laminated isolator is designed to carry the weight of the structure and make the post-yield elasticity
available. The rubber provides the isolation and the re-centering. The lead core deforms plastically under
shear deformations at a predetermined flow stress, while dissipating energy through heat with hysteretic
damping of up to 30%.
In practice, bridges that have been seismically isolated using LRB bearings have been proven to perform
effectively, reducing the bridge seismic response during earthquake shaking. For instance, the Thjorsa
River Bridge in Iceland survived two major earthquakes, of moment magnitudes (Mw) 6.6 and 6.5, without
serious damage and was open for traffic immediately after the earthquakes as reported by Bessason and
Haflidason (Bessason, 2004).

Page 3 of 9
LRB bearings of seismically isolated bridges, due to their inherent flexibility, can be subjected to large
shear deformations in the event of large earthquake ground motions. According to experimental test
results, LRB bearings experience significant hardening behavior beyond certain high shear strain levels
due to geometric effects (Turkington et al., 1989).

3.1. LRB analytical model

LRB bearings have been represented using a number of analytical models, from the relatively simple
equivalent linear model composed of the effective stiffness and equivalent damping ratio formulated by
Huang (Huang et al., 1996) to the sophisticated finite element formulation developed by Salomon
(Salomon et al., 1999). However, the most extensively adopted model for dynamic analysis of seismically
isolated structures is the bilinear idealization for the force-displacement hysteretic loop (Ali et al., 1995).
Due to its simplicity and accuracy in identifying the force-displacement relationship of the isolation
devices, LRB bearing supports can be represented by the bilinear force-displacement hysteresis loop
given in Fig. 4. The principal parameters that characterize the model are the pre-yield stiffness Kl,
corresponding to the combined stiffness of the rubber bearing and the lead plug, the stiffness of the
rubber Kd and the yield force of the lead plug Qd. The value of Qd is influenced primarily by the
characteristics of the lead plug, but it is important to take into account that in areas of cold temperatures,
the use of natural rubber will result in significant increases in force values.

Figure 4. Analytical model of an LRB elastomeric isolator.

4. Testing of LRB seismic isolators

Prototype testing is frequently required by contracts for the supply of LRB seismic isolators, due to the
fact that applications tend to be unique in various ways, considering both the structure and the seismic
characteristics of the region where it is located. An example of such testing is included in the case study
below.

4.1. Case study: Seismic isolation of New highway viaduct in Quebec

In general, highway bridges in Quebec have not being designed to withstand high seismic demands.
However, even though Quebec is not as seismically active as other areas, a certain risk of earthquake
damage exists. A recent example of how seismic engineering is now being more widely applied in the
design and construction of new structures in Quebec is the seismic isolation of a curved highway viaduct,
serving the city of Levis as part of the A20/A73 Interchange.
The new viaduct was constructed adjacent to an existing structure in order to increase highway capacity.
LRBs were selected to support the bridge deck in normal service and to protect the structure during an
earthquake by isolating it from the destructive movements of the ground beneath. The LRBs thus ensure
the constant serviceability of the structure, even after the occurrence of a strong earthquake, facilitating

Page 4 of 9
the passage of emergency vehicles and contributing to the safety of the population. The viaduct is a six-
span structure with a steel girder deck, with spans of between 40m and 60m and a total length of over
300m. With a horizontal radius of 270m, it has a prominent curve which heightens the risk of serious
damage during an earthquake and thus increases the need for its deck to be seismically isolated from its
supports. The end spans of the deck are supported by conventional pot bearings (at the abutments and
on the first pier at each end), while the three internal piers support the deck via LRBs.

Figure 5. Lead rubber bearings installed in the bridge – guided (left) and multi-directional (right).

4.2. Design of the LRBs

Each of these internal piers has six LRBs, one supporting each of the deck’s main longitudinal girders.
The LRBs at each side of these piers, supporting the outer girders, are multi-directional (facilitating
horizontal movements in all directions insofar as these are permitted by deformation of the elastomeric
pad and its lead core). The remaining LRBs, supporting the internal girders, are guided, with steel fittings
preventing all transverse movements. An LRB of each type is shown in Figure 5. Each LRB has a vertical
load capacity of approximately 3,000 kN – primarily to serve its primary purpose of supporting the deck
under normal service conditions. Due to the structure’s location, the LRBs were designed for
temperatures as high as 40°C (104°F) and as low as -30°C (-22°F). In addition to these severe
temperature conditions, the LRBs also had to be designed to fulfill the following requirements:
o Facilitate movements of up to 95 mm in the longitudinal direction
o In the case of guided bearings, restrict movements in the transverse direction;
o Provide damping of up to 24%;
o Dissipate hysteretic energy up to 40 kNm per cycle;
o Ensure re-centering following an earthquake;
o Increase the period of the deck of the bridge to more than 2 seconds; and
o Transmit horizontal loads of up to 410 kN at a typical ambient temperature of 20°C (68°F)
o Transmit horizontal loads of up to 600 kN at a low temperature of -30°C (-22°F)
These demands presented a significant challenge for design and manufacture – especially in relation to
low temperature performance. The bearings were designed to provide optimal performance at 20°C and
to minimize variations in dynamic characteristics at very low temperatures. Considering the sensitivity of
rubber to low temperatures, this was very difficult to achieve. However, after a detailed analysis of the
effects of temperature on the rubber and the lead, and evaluation of the overall performance of the
devices during extensive full-scale testing, it was possible to develop an optimal solution according to
Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code CAN/CSA-S6. This solution included design of a new rubber
mixture – based on an extensive development program which included testing of a number of rubber
samples – and resulted in an optimized LRB design considering all conditions.

Page 5 of 9
4.3. Prototype testing of LRBs
Prototype testing was carried out in accordance with the isolator supply contract, to verify the
performance of the LRBs in accordance with their design and the project specifications. The testing
included evaluation of the dynamic performance of each device in terms of effective stiffness, damping,
energy dissipated per cycle and other parameters such as displacements and forces. The testing protocol
for room temperature testing is shown in Table 1. Similar testing was required at the specified very low
temperature.
The test equipment and its configuration, which allows the simultaneous testing of two isolators, is shown
in Figure 6. The steel frame holding the isolators was designed to counter the thrust forces that are
created during testing of seismic isolation devices. The maximum horizontal load depended on the
characteristics of the servo actuator installed, and a nominal value of 1400 kN was considered. The
maximum vertical load of 10000 kN was provided by two actuators, each 5000 kN.
The project required consideration of both the AASHTO Guide Specifications for Seismic Isolation Design
(AASHTO GSSID) and the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CAN/CSA-S6-06). While AASHTO
GSSID requirements are well known and applied, the application of CAN/CSA-S6-06 requirements
presented an additional challenge. This code specifies in Section 4.10.11 the main requirements for the
testing of seismic isolation devices.
The specimens each had a plan dimension of 500 x 500 mm and a total height of 284 mm, and were
designed for a total design displacement of 95 mm and a test maximum vertical load of 4,677 kN. The
samples were subjected to 23 different tests, most of them including dynamic conditions, and with
frequency and amplitude varying from one test to the next. For all dynamic testing, a vertical load of 1,715
kN was applied to each of the samples.

Page 6 of 9
 Table 1. Testing protocol required for room temperature performance.
Test Main Cycle Compression Horizontal
Test Name Specification Amplitude Cycles
No. DOF Duration Load Load
[-] [mm] [sec] [kN] [kN] [-]
AASHTO
13.2.2.1
1 Thermal / Service CSA L ± 60 20 1,715 ± 190 20
4.10.11.2
(c)(i)
Wind and Braking: Pre-
L 7 20 ± 26 20
seismic 1/2
AASHTO
2 1,715
Wind and Braking: Pre- 13.2.2.2
V 0 60 0 0
seismic 2/2

L ± 95 20 300 3

L ± 24 20 75 3

AASHTO L ± 48 20 150 3
13.2.2.3
3 Seismic CSA 1,715
L ± 71 20 225 3
4.10.11.2
(c)(ii)
L ± 95 20 300 3

L ± 119 20 375 3

CSA
4 Seismic verification 4.10.11.2 L ± 95 60 1,715 293 10
(c)(iii)
Wind and Braking:
L 7 20 ± 26 3
Post-Seismic 1/2 AASHTO
5 1,715
Wind and Braking: 13.2.2.4
V 0 60 0 0
Post-Seismic 2/2
loading
Stability 1/3 L 105 60 1,072 325
ramp
CSA loading
6 Stability 2/3 4.10.11.2 L 105 60 2,155 325
ramp
(d)
Stability 3/3 V 0 60 4,677 0 0

The testing protocol presented in Table 1 fulfills all specified requirements, incorporating necessary
adjustments as required by the project engineer. The following special considerations were taken into
account for the prototypes testing:
o Room Temperature Tests (with isolators conditioned at the temperature of 20±5 °C for 48 hours
prior to testing):
• 5 fully reversed sinusoidal cycles at amplitude of 95 mm and peak velocity of 200 mm/s
(frequency of 0.333 Hz).
• 3 fully reversed sinusoidal cycles at amplitude of 95, 24, 48, 72, 95 and 119 mm and
frequency of 0.333 Hz.

Page 7 of 9
 o Low Temperature Tests (with isolators conditioned at the temperature of -30 °C for 72 hours prior
to testing):
• 5 fully reversed sinusoidal cycles at amplitude of 95 mm and peak velocity of 200 mm/s
(frequency of 0.333 Hz).

Figure 6. Testing equipment and its configuration.

4.4. Low temperature results

The extensive testing carried out on the two specimens provided a large amount of data. Here, only the
key performance at room temperature, and a comparison with the performance at low temperature, are
presented. Figure 7 shows the main hysteretic responses at room temperature (a) and low temperature
(b).

a) b)
Figure 7. Test results at a) Room Temperature of 20°C (68°F) and b) Low Temperature of -30°C (-
22°F) after 72 hours of exposure.

Page 8 of 9
 Table 2. Average results of the last three cycles of the prototype testing, at room and low
temperatures
Room Temperature Low Temperature
Parameter Unit
20°C (68°F) -30°C (-22°F)
Displacement mm 95 95
Horizontal force kN 302 589
Post-elastic stiffness kN/mm 1.91 3.88
Effective stiffness kN/mm 3.17 6.33
Characteristic strength kN 120 220
Energy dissipated per cycle kN-m 43.12 88.06
Damping % 24 25.6

The results in Table 2 demonstrate that the key dynamic parameters such as effective stiffness,
horizontal force, post-elastic stiffness and characteristic strength increase by a factor of about two at very
low temperatures. However, considering the severe variation of temperature and the strong dependence
of rubber’s behavior on temperature, these results verified well the effectiveness of these specially
developed LRBs at low temperatures, as well as compliance with the project specifications.

5. Conclusions
Lead rubber bearings (LRB), which are widely used to seismically isolate highway bridge structures,
display a significant vulnerability to low temperatures (e.g. -30 °C) unless designed and fabricated for
such conditions. In particular, their design should ensure that they display only minor variations in their
effective stiffness at such temperatures. As in the case study presented, this may require the
development of a new rubber mixture, the optimization of the general design of the isolators, and
verification of low-temperature performance by means of extensive full-scale prototype testing.

6. References
BESSASON, B., AND HAFLIDASON, E.: Recorded and numerical strong motion response of a base-
isolated bridge, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 309-332, 2004.
HUANG, J. S., AND CHIOU, J. M.: An equivalent linear model of lead-rubber seismic isolation bearings,
Engineering Structures, Vol. 18, No. 7, pp. 528-536, 1996.
MENDEZ GALINDO CARLOS, HAYASHIKAWA T. AND RUIZ JULIAN F. D.: Seismic damage due to
curvature effect on curved highway viaducts, Proceedings of the 14th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, IAEE, Beijing, China, October 12-18, 2008.
MENDEZ GALINDO C., HAYASHIKAWA T. AND RUIZ JULIAN F. D.: Seismic performance of isolated
curved steel viaducts under level II earthquakes, Journal of Structural Engineering, JSCE. Vol. 55A,
pp. 699-708, March 2009.
MOEHLE, J. P., AND EBERHARD, M. O.: Chapter 34: Earthquake damage to bridges. In: Chen, W. F.,
and Duan, editors. Bridge Engineering Handbook, Boca Raton, CRC Press, 1999.
RUIZ JULIAN, D.: Seismic performance of isolated curved highway viaducts equipped with unseating
prevention cable restrainers, Doctoral Dissertation, Graduate School of Engineering, Hokkaido
University, Japan. December 2005.
SALOMON, O., OLLER, S., AND BARBAT, A.: Finite element analysis of base isolated buildings
subjected to earthquake loads, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol. 46,
pp. 1741-1761, 1999.
TURKINGTON, D. H., CARR, A. J., COOKE, N., AND MOSS, P.J.: Seismic design of bridges on lead-
rubber bearings, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 115, No. 12, pp. 3000-3016, 1989.

Page 9 of 9